A high-stakes game of geopolitical brinkmanship is happening behind the scenes, with the Israeli and Iranian leaders now jockeying for pole position in the race for America’s good graces.

Following Washington’s spectacular climbdown from war in Syria,
Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu, who portrayed Syria as
something of a playground for Iran and Hezbollah, Israel’s two
arch-enemies, suffered a setback by the unexpected change of
political winds.

“Assad’s regime isn’t acting alone,” Netanyahu told
reporters in late August as an attack looked inevitable.
“Iran, and Iran’s proxy, Hezbollah, are there on the ground
playing an active role assisting Syria. In fact, Assad’s regime
has become a full Iranian client and Syria has become Iran’s
testing ground.”

What Netanyahu failed to point out, however, is that the Syrian
rebel opposition is also not working alone. Al-Qaeda elements –
the ragtag team of terrorists that allegedly orchestrated the
sophisticated attacks of 9/11 – are also joining efforts to
remove Assad from power. Whether or not that disturbing footnote
played a part in what was to happen next is quite possible.

On the very eve of America’s expected jolly little dash in
Damascus, the fog of politics trumped the fog of war as Obama –
rattled by British Prime Minister David Cameron’s failure to win
support for military action in the House of Commons – stunned the
world by seeking congressional approval before committing his
military forces to any action against the Syrian regime.

This unexpected decision completely knocked the wind out of the
pro-war camp’s sails.

Washington, bereft of its once-solid British ally, was suddenly
grinding gears and spilling oil in an effort to strike the right
war rhythm. At this point, not even the influential pro-Israel
American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which had
deployed “hundreds of activists to win support in Congress for
military action in Syria,” according to Haaretz, could entice
the superpower into another super mess.

The military theater of the absurd hit its highpoint when US
Secretary of State John Kerry, itchy trigger finger and all,
promised an “unbelievably small, limited” cruise missile
bombardment of Syria to punish the Assad regime’s alleged use of
chemical weapons on August 21.

If war in Iran is the endgame, as many observers suspect it is,
then Israel’s objectives in the region have been seriously upset
by Obama’s flip-flopping on the question of military action in
Syria. That is because in the event that Israel – unilaterally or
otherwise – decides to launch any sort of pre-emptive strike on
Iran’s nuclear facilities, it will certainly not want its flanks
exposed to Syrian and Hezbollah forces.

"We always wanted Bashar Assad to go, we always preferred the
bad guys who weren't backed by Iran to the bad guys who were
backed by Iran," Israel’s ambassador to the United States
Michael Oren admitted in an interview on Sept. 19.

Toppling the Assad government would have weakened the
“strategic arc that extends from Tehran, to Damascus to
Beirut. And we saw the Assad regime as the keystone in that
arc," he said.

Between Iran’s Rouhani and a hard place

So now Netanyahu finds himself still confronted by diehard Assad
in Damascus, while Iran, whom Israel suspects of attempting to
build a nuclear weapon, did something even crueler: It said
goodbye to the supreme agitator, former President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad and hello to the moderate reformist, Hasan Rouhani,
who has already launched a charm offensive with Israel’s No. 1
ally.

Just days after the anticipated attack on Syria fizzled out,
President Barack Obama held true to his campaign pledge of
“sitting down and talking with America’s enemies” by
having a telephone conversation with Rouhani.

Obama said the leaders had instructed their diplomats to work
“expeditiously” toward an agreement on Iran's nuclear program,
adding that this was a “unique opportunity” to make
progress with the Islamic Republic over an issue that has
isolated it from the West.

"While there will surely be important obstacles to moving
forward and success is by no means guaranteed, I believe we can
reach a comprehensive solution," Obama said, in comments that
certainly did not sit well with the Israeli leader.

Later, as Iranian and American officials began talks in Geneva at
the beginning of October to discuss Iran’s nuclear program, and
whether or not to ease crippling sanctions against Tehran,
Netanyahu was in the Knesset, discussing the possibility of a
unilateral strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

“We can’t surrender the option of a preventive strike,” he
told Israeli parliamentarians. “It is not necessary in every
situation, and it must be weighed carefully and seriously. But
there are situations in which paying heed to the international
price of such a step is outweighed by the price in blood we will
pay if we absorb a strategic strike that will demand a response
later on, and perhaps too late.”

Netanyahu, of course, would like nothing more than for the United
States to perform the dirty work of bombing the Iranian nuclear
enrichment facilities in Natanz and Fordow.

However, with the United States still licking its wounds
following protracted military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq,
and American voters weary of chasing terrorists at such a high
moral and physical cost, the Obama administration has little
choice but to avoid another war.

Now the question remains: Will Netanyahu really risk an all-out
regional conflict by ordering a pre-emptive strike on Iran, or is
he bluffing in an effort to contain Tehran’s nuclear ambitions?

The answer is of no little importance to every person on the
planet.

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.